This question goes out to all the people who actually believe that gay sex is immoral. I am formally challenging that belief. If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of those reasons.

Attendance by Bap33 is mandatory. By the way, that avatar is pretty gay for someone who's homophobic.

And the Angels had no sexual componant with each other, and could only pro-create with earth-bound life. Not saying just "female humans", because I have no reason to believe their sexual interaction was limited to only female humans. The myths of the half-man, half-animal beings could be partly based on the results on angels trying on beasts too. Maybe they have the magic DNA that mixed with everything, and the mix they created with apes is what we are?

The fact that you actually try to square those myths with reality illustrates exactly why religious beliefs are a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.

I can only image what religion nonsense you'd spew if a time traveler left a copy of the Twilight novels in ancient Sumeria. You'd probably discuss the history of vegan vampires or some such nonsense.

Look, mythology can be fun, but you have differentiate between it and reality. Otherwise, you'll end up at Comic-Con like these guys, and you don't want to be these guys.

too often, people just seem to accept that because things are the way they are, that is how they should be. It seems to me that this is overtly dependent on the time factor ie. things change over time. As far as i know, there are plenty of laws in the states prohibiting all types of sexual behaviours,,,,,oral sex, anal sex etc.,,,,,good luck enforcing them! For those of you that support using the government as a weapon against your fellow (wo)man and their private actions that don't affect other people, do you ever bother to ask the question, at what cost?

Fully agree here. I think it's not natural and not normal, but there is strong business pressure to keep up the basic premise of monogamy as desirable and then let people fail. So much money depends on this repeating circle. If people would stop treating each other as possessions and set each other free if necessary (this is true love) then we would not need divorce lawyer sharks, nasty custody trials and more. Throughout my life I have never felt any resentment for ex-gf's and never talked shit about them and have stayed friends with a lot, It just gets harder once you have a family and enter society's marriage circus - or better try to stay out of it. People think it's ok that we can declare anyone as enemy combatant in an instant and then send drones to kill them but if Petraeus sticks his dick into another chick there must be consequences! ;)

Monogamy does occur in nature, but it's a hell of a lot rarer than homosexuality.

In nature yes, but in humans monogamy is much more common homosexuality.

I think that there is a problem with the thinking that monogamy or *er* non-monogamy is either moral/immoral, natural/unnatural, desirable, etc. Both seem to occur in just about equal parts in humanity, both are natural and both can be approached in either moral or immoral ways.

I feel that it is more important that relationships are consenting, equal (more-or-less) partnerships, where people are honest with each other about their sexuality.

You can't possibly believe the second sentence. Can you see that the first sentence gives lie to to the second?

No. Please explain in great detail. Leave no steps out.

I reserve the right to show any flaws in your work.

1. You say your morality is entirely objective. This means it exists independently of your physical existence or of your physical or psycological state.

2. You say it's yours, so you should have a way to communicate to it at any given moment.

3. You say you are an atheist, so the way you communicate to your morality must be entirely material.

4. You decline the suggestion that your morality is all socially induced, I.e. created by a set of norms and acceptable reactions defined by your upbringing, education, and information you receive. Otherwise you would have to agree it is defined by those who control the discurse. You declined this posibility in prior conversations.

BTW, accepting such a morality is the large step from the universal morality to the corporative one. I.e. good is what's good for me, or "for my family", "for my company", "good for Jews", "good for my social class", "Deutchland ueber alles", etc. Out of the people I've met only some Zionists openly endorsed corporative morality, but obviously there are plenty of closet "corporative moralists".

So, in fact you say you have some mysterious ways to communicate to the universal morality, which exists independently. Maybe by itself it is not a contradiction, but for a hell of an atheist...

Interestingly enough, you also wrote you are not interested in Harris' attempts to find biological (neuro-biological) sources of morality, since it's all about science and you an "engineer".

1. You say your morality is entirely objective. This means it exists independently of your physical existence or of your physical or psycological state.

No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant. For example, a pie is to be divided into two slices. One person divides the pie, the other person chooses his slice. The person constructing the division has no motive to divide it any way but even because the other person chooses the slice. Hence the divider will objectively evaluate the division of the pie and make it even.

There is nothing in my morality that applies more or less due to my own personal situation. And if my situation were randomized by an act of a fictitious god, I would be no more or less happy with my morality than I am now for I have divided the pie evenly. I can do this because I base my morality on rational thought, not feelings and prejudices.

3. You say you are an atheist, so the way you communicate to your morality must be entirely material.

No, I can and do most certainly communicate in non-material ways. I'm a software developer. All the work I do every single way is completely non-material, abstract, informational. Mathematics is completely non-material. What I don't do as an atheist or as a rationalist, is bullshit and make up falsehoods and proclaim them to be unquestionable truths.

Furthermore, even when I was a Catholic, I never, ever had to rely on a god for moral authority. I could easily understand the difference between right and wrong without a god. For example, baby rape is wrong regardless of whether or not there is a god or that god wants you to rape babies. Would you consider baby rape to be good if you thought your god desired it? That would be fucked up.

4. You decline the suggestion that your morality is all socially induced, I.e. created by a set of norms and acceptable reactions defined by your upbringing, education, and information you receive. Otherwise you would have to agree it is defined by those who control the discurse. You declined this posibility in prior conversations

So, in fact you say you have some mysterious ways to communicate to the universal morality, which exists independently. Maybe by itself it is not a contradiction, but for a hell of an atheist...

Morality is no more universal or absolute than bridge design. You can design bridges in many ways with varying trade-offs. The underlying mathematics and physics are absolute, but the bridge design is creative and there is no single, universal bridge design. The same damn thing goes for morality. It's engineering, not arbitrary religious dogma.

Sorry Bap, but 666 is an integer and we all have to go through it before reaching 667.

By the way, the only reason 666 is consider "the devil's number" is because there are three sixes and 6 was consider an evil number. Having three sixes is a reflection of the Holy Trinity. So 666 is evil and 777 is good luck.

So why is 6 considered evil and 7 considered good luck or godly? Pagan astrology, where Christianity got most of its myths.

Excluding the stars, there are seven astronomical bodies you can see from Earth (excluding Earth itself, of course) with the naked eye. They are the sun, the moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Notice that there are seven of them. Notice that we have seven days in a week including Sunday and Moonday (Monday) and Saturnday (Saturday). The ancients were fucking subtle.

Also notice that the Bible says god created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.

Well, since there were seven heavenly bodies visible to the naked eye and therefore were the only ones that existed in the minds of the ancients, then seven was a heavenly number. Six, being one less than seven, is falling short of heavenly and is why six represents evil.

Combine 7 with the Holy Trinity to get lucky number 777. Combine 6 with an unholy trinity to get 666. The mark of the beast is nothing more than this lame myth.

Ever wonder why the devil appeared to Eve as a snake instead of as a dove? The snake is the natural enemy of primates like humans. We have an instinctive fear of them. If the rabbit were the natural enemy of primates, the devil would have appeared to Eve as the Easter Bunny.

Ever wonder why there are 24 hours in a day? Also astrology. The ancients looked up in the night sky and imagined twelve constellations dividing that sky. They called these the 12 signs of the Zodiac. So they divided night into two equal parts.

You can't see stars in the day, but since on average days and nights are equally long, if you are going to divide the night into 12 parts, you should divide the day into 12 pars as well. Hence we have a 24 hour day.

Since an hour is a relatively long period of time, we divide the hour into 60 parts since base 60 was a popular numeric system as it makes arithmetic easy (60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20, 30). We call each minute part of an hour a "minute". Again, the ancients were so fucking subtle. Since the minute is still relatively long, we divide that into 60 parts, that is "second" order minute parts of an hour. Can you guess where the word second as a measurement of time came from? If the ancients wanted to divide the second up into smaller parts, we'd have thirds. Luckily, this did not become necessary until modern times when we moved over to base 10.

No, I can and do most certainly communicate in non-material ways. I'm a software developer. All the work I do every single way is completely non-material, abstract, informational. Mathematics is completely non-material. What I don't do as an atheist or as a rationalist, is bullshit and make up falsehoods and proclaim them to be unquestionable truths.

Enough. The paragraph above tells it all. As a software developer you use electromagnetic waves or quants, which are a form of matter. Your brainwaves or states of your neurons are as well. Your pretending you do not understand it is "bullshit". Your references to mathematics is another example of your "bullshit". As your post on your assumption about no contradiction in mathematics clearly illustrates you hardly know what you are talking about.

However, much worse of your "bullshit" is when you pretend you do not understand what I (or someone else) ask you.

Morality is no more universal or absolute than bridge design. You can design bridges in many ways with varying trade-offs.

Another example of a pure bullshit. Probably what you wanted to say is that there are various systems of social ethics based on common thing like engineering is based on mathematics. I have a news for you: this common thing is called morality.

The bullshit is in the fact that you think that by shifting your terminology you may be able to change the facts and avoid answering my questions. However, the only thing you do this way is saying: "I'm a faithful atheist and I do not care if my religion is consistent".

"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from the thoughts of a conscious entity or subject."

Well, Ayn Rand objectivism is a different thing. I think it came from the word "objective" == goal. Basically, her "philosophy" was get your objectives no matter what.

And yes it was a primitive form of Nietscheanism.
Remember, Nietsche was a very unhappy man. we usually take his "God is dead." out of context. In fact it was like "God is dead. We've killed God. It's impossible to live in this new world of us. We need something instead right now." So he invented his Superman. He was very talented man, suffereing a lot from the state of his mind and anding in complete insanity.

Ayn Rand was a poor and vulgar writer, a cynical mediocre in any sense whose crede was: let's grab all we want as long as we enjoy it. She just found a way to sell cynicism to those who liked that form of it.

Ironically, they became very popular among extreme right wing atheists. Nietsche -- in Germany, Ayn Rand -- in America.

You are right. God, the human concept, is all about the meaning of life.

But if reality is objective, He exists beyond our conception. Hmm...

Very nice!
I would say for most of young people I happened to know who turn to believe in God, this is the path. They need the meaning of life and they need an objective one. (Including me many years ago. :)

Bap69, your unhealthy obsession with this topic has made you into a troll. Find a willing man and get what you need. Remember to put some lube in first, and make sure he wears a condom. After the initial pain goes away, you'll feel better.

As a software developer you use electromagnetic waves or quants, which are a form of matter.

Yes, that's how programming is done. The developer directly manipulates electromagnetic waves in the computer like Magneto.

You do realize that everyone has a physical brain that depends on the electro-magnetic force. That has nothing to do with atheism being more "materialistic" than monotheism. It's just that atheists don't use supernatural bullshit to explain morality, and doing so would add nothing to the discussion anyway.

Your pretending you do not understand it is "bullshit". Your references to mathematics is another example of your "bullshit". As your post on your assumption about no contradiction in mathematics clearly illustrates you hardly know what you are talking about.

However, much worse of your "bullshit" is when you pretend you do not understand what I (or someone else) ask you.

You can call my writings bullshit all you want. Most people understand what I say and don't misinterpret them as you do. And as for not understanding what you are asking, that's a failure to write clearly on your part.

Here's a helpful tip. If it isn't clear in your mind, it won't be clear coming out of your mouth.

The seven-day week preceded Christianity, but that wasn't going to stop them from claiming credit for it.

What a bullshit! Stop whom to take credit for what. With all your lecturing you loose a common sense.

The fact is that the seven-day week is a result of astrology, not the Judeo-Christian myth of god creating the Earth in 6 days and resting on the seventh. Feel free to argue against this, but present facts rather than assertions. As for who invented the Zodiac, Google that shit and don't waste my time.

The fact that you actually try to square those myths with reality illustrates exactly why religious beliefs are a mental disorder and homosexuality is not.

Bullshit! It illustrates nothing about homosexuality.

Boy are you grasping for straws. Let's first acknowledge that you did not refute the fact that Bap's delusion shows that religious beliefs are a mental disorder. Very interesting.

As to how this relates to the conversation regarding homosexuality, the only people asserting that homosexuality is a mental disorder are the ones clearly suffering from a mental disorder of their own. If only crazy people call you crazy and doctors don't, you're probably not crazy.

Only the intellectually lazy use Wikipedia. It is foolish and stupid. Get a real source. One that isn't dominated by dumb-ass kids, plagiarizers, and corporate and government agencies with political agendas.

Furthermore, I was explaining what makes my moral system objective. That has nothing to do with some philosophy named after the word "objective" anyway. Christ, your reading comprehension skills suck. So, I'll dumb this down as much as possible. An objective moral code is no more or less likely to be accepted by a person X before and after person X's status and situation (race, gender, nationality, wealth, social or political power, etc.) is randomized. A subjective moral code is more or less likely to be accepted by a person X depending on his status and situation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this concept.

I've got about ten thousand more of these stories. Why doesn't the press mention the whole male/female "sodimited designation" in these stories? Oh yeah, because it's irrelevant. But wait, what if Bap is right and such stories proves that heterosexuality is a mental disorder. We need to rehabilitate straights into becoming gays.

Bap, your cherry picking, which is the most heterosexual thing you've ever done.

As to how this relates to the conversation regarding homosexuality, the only people asserting that homosexuality is a mental disorder are the ones clearly suffering from a mental disorder of their own. If only crazy people call you crazy and doctors don't, you're probably not crazy.

Sounds like the opinion of one bigoted psychologist who is upset that homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder just like black people are no longer considered mentally inferior to white people. There used to be a lot of bigotry (racism, sexism, and homophobia) in the pseudo-science of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This was replaced by objective, rational science in which evidence, not personal opinion, was the basis for scientific consensus.

As I stated in in a previous post, countless reputable medical associations do not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Your refutation of this is that one organization used to half a century ago during more bigoted times. If this is a reputable organization, then we'd have to go with its current statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

But, I'll tell you what. I'll invite an expert from that organization to discuss whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder. Hell, I'll invite your expert witness as well.